Thank you for this. The three rules certainly apply to sedevacantists because a) the belief is novel, b) they have made their own personal belief into a doctrine, and c) if you try to charitably correct them they get irate, angry and accuse you of being a heretic.
Hi Ken. Thanks for your comment. I assume you realise that we hold to conclusions which probably fall under your stricture there. However:
A. Our conclusion about Francis etc is only as novel in the sense that his claim is novel, ie contemporary. The principles, however, on which this conclusion is based are far from novel.
B. People have different views. I think it's a theological conclusion based on doctrine, but it isn't a dogma. We have written a lot on this topic and explained why there is no schism between those who do or don't hold this view, and why even those who are wrong on this matter (whichever side that might be) wouldn't cease to be Catholics by that fact alone, all other things being equal.
C. I hope this message shows that disagreeing with us on this matter doesn't make us all angry or lead to such accusations. We have also published many things against such behaviour.
It's true though that people generally don't like being "corrected" by random strangers it's true, especially if the arguments aren't great and have been heard many times before. Perhaps it might be worth also examining just what a "charitable correction" looks like.
A) The sedevacantist belief itself is novel i.e. new / un-traditional (anti-traditional?), which is to say not found anywhere in Church tradition. This in and of itself indisputably makes the belief itself, novel. The reason Item “A” exposes it as such, is simply due to the fact that this belief is not found anywhere in Church tradition, rather, Canon Law / Church tradition holds that the First See is judged by no one – note well that there is purposely no distinction whatsoever of a heretic pope(s) .….this is of course argued with: “We’re not judging a pope because he is not the pope,” which rebuttal, by design, only creates a conundrum without end.
B) Yes, the Catholic must come to a personal conclusion, which is always based on their personal interpretation or understanding of selective pickings from various papal teachings and doctrines, but to adhere to this belief they must at the same time ignore, misinterpret/misunderstand, and/or basically regard as null, other papal teachings and fundamental Catholic principles and teachings that disagree with the sedevacantist belief, which, please note, said belief includes other beliefs and practices that go beyond a Vacant Seat.
C) Yes, your reply is not angry, but I pretty much guarantee if we keep this going – it is quite likely that will change. Not too many Catholics like to be told that their belief in Sedevacantism is wrong and novel, and if anyone can point out where in the tradition or history of the Church that the faithful held the same belief and remained within the Church, please come forward! Other than that, Pope St. Pius V, pray for us, protect the Roman Liturgy!
I'm surprised that you think that that doesn't appear in the tradition of the Church. We could clarify your definition a bit further, of course, by making sure we're talking about the same thing when we say heresy. We mean that kind of open, manifest heresy which is incompatible with the external profession of faith, which is a criteria for membership. And we do hold that someone who isn't a member can't hold office. All this is pretty standard stuff.
We could also add, too, that we are also not just dealing with issues of non-membership but with the total deconstruction and reconstruction of the religion out of a mixture a more or less new materials, according to a more or less new form. That's the external fact that we are trying to explain.
How did you demonstrate that the rules in the article are true and correct? It is true that some who hold sede vacante have fallen into other heresies, but the idea that a heretic cannot be Pope is a Catholic one. Through his charity Sean has shown himself to not be one who has fallen into heresy. Consider that perhaps it is your pre-conceived ideas and use of stereotypes in making judgements that needs revising?
Thank you for this. The three rules certainly apply to sedevacantists because a) the belief is novel, b) they have made their own personal belief into a doctrine, and c) if you try to charitably correct them they get irate, angry and accuse you of being a heretic.
Hi Ken. Thanks for your comment. I assume you realise that we hold to conclusions which probably fall under your stricture there. However:
A. Our conclusion about Francis etc is only as novel in the sense that his claim is novel, ie contemporary. The principles, however, on which this conclusion is based are far from novel.
B. People have different views. I think it's a theological conclusion based on doctrine, but it isn't a dogma. We have written a lot on this topic and explained why there is no schism between those who do or don't hold this view, and why even those who are wrong on this matter (whichever side that might be) wouldn't cease to be Catholics by that fact alone, all other things being equal.
C. I hope this message shows that disagreeing with us on this matter doesn't make us all angry or lead to such accusations. We have also published many things against such behaviour.
It's true though that people generally don't like being "corrected" by random strangers it's true, especially if the arguments aren't great and have been heard many times before. Perhaps it might be worth also examining just what a "charitable correction" looks like.
Thanks again!
You might like this:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/catholics-in-error
A) The sedevacantist belief itself is novel i.e. new / un-traditional (anti-traditional?), which is to say not found anywhere in Church tradition. This in and of itself indisputably makes the belief itself, novel. The reason Item “A” exposes it as such, is simply due to the fact that this belief is not found anywhere in Church tradition, rather, Canon Law / Church tradition holds that the First See is judged by no one – note well that there is purposely no distinction whatsoever of a heretic pope(s) .….this is of course argued with: “We’re not judging a pope because he is not the pope,” which rebuttal, by design, only creates a conundrum without end.
B) Yes, the Catholic must come to a personal conclusion, which is always based on their personal interpretation or understanding of selective pickings from various papal teachings and doctrines, but to adhere to this belief they must at the same time ignore, misinterpret/misunderstand, and/or basically regard as null, other papal teachings and fundamental Catholic principles and teachings that disagree with the sedevacantist belief, which, please note, said belief includes other beliefs and practices that go beyond a Vacant Seat.
C) Yes, your reply is not angry, but I pretty much guarantee if we keep this going – it is quite likely that will change. Not too many Catholics like to be told that their belief in Sedevacantism is wrong and novel, and if anyone can point out where in the tradition or history of the Church that the faithful held the same belief and remained within the Church, please come forward! Other than that, Pope St. Pius V, pray for us, protect the Roman Liturgy!
Would you like to define precisely what you mean by "the sedevacantist belief"?
Essentially, sedevacantism is the belief that due to their multiple heresies, the pope(s) cannot be pope(s).
I'm surprised that you think that that doesn't appear in the tradition of the Church. We could clarify your definition a bit further, of course, by making sure we're talking about the same thing when we say heresy. We mean that kind of open, manifest heresy which is incompatible with the external profession of faith, which is a criteria for membership. And we do hold that someone who isn't a member can't hold office. All this is pretty standard stuff.
We could also add, too, that we are also not just dealing with issues of non-membership but with the total deconstruction and reconstruction of the religion out of a mixture a more or less new materials, according to a more or less new form. That's the external fact that we are trying to explain.
How did you demonstrate that the rules in the article are true and correct? It is true that some who hold sede vacante have fallen into other heresies, but the idea that a heretic cannot be Pope is a Catholic one. Through his charity Sean has shown himself to not be one who has fallen into heresy. Consider that perhaps it is your pre-conceived ideas and use of stereotypes in making judgements that needs revising?
Thanks for this John.